AI and the Axis

[literati]

First, let me compliment 2x3 and Matrix - you guys have a winner here. WaW seems a nearly perfect balance between a beer-n-cheetos game and a crunchy wargame. There are things missing that I would like to see, and some things are a bit kludgy, but it has kept me up very late for three nights running, and despie what my wife thinks, that's a good thing!

I have noticed, after perhaps 10 half-games and full one as welll as numerous shorter starts, that the game is rather dramatically balanced in favor of the Allies. Others have noticed the same. This isn't a problem, really, except for one glaring issue: when playing single player against the AI, you will always lose as the Axis and always win as the Allies.

Germany seems too complicated a strategic situation for the AI to handle. Inevitably, it pushes hard into Russia right 'on schedule' , makes some progress, only to be pushed back right before America enters - very bad timing. The Japan AI is just as eight-up. It takes the coastal regions of China, twiddles its thumbs, launches an ineffectual Pearl Harbor attack and gets pounded by the US. Yeah, the above certainly reads like history, but with the enormous power of the US, having a dead weight AI as a partner means a loss for the Axis player.

Speaking of the WA faction, it is certainly 'easy mode', even with advances supply. It was the last power I 'tried out', and my oh my. The first thing I did was build an extra factory everywhere but India and Britain. Researched ASW and Heavy Bomber Land Attack, hemmed-in the German Navy, and started mass prducing heavy bombers to help Russia. By the time Pearl Harbor hit, Germany's infrastructure was devestated and their advance prematurely stalled. The insane, insane production power of the US resulted in Honshu falling in '43 and the Russians and Americans (coming up from Italy) met in Berlin. Game over - Allies 6774, Axis 299.

That brings me to my last point. Unless it was done for balance reasons, ruling that the Axis powers surrender like wet rags when their capitols are takens but that Allies always fight on smacks of silly arrogance and jingoism. Maybe, given its size and geographic isloation, America would be resistant to this if Washington DC fell. Maybe. But can anyone see Britain fighting on as anything but 'partisans' if England fell? Likewise, Moscow tends to fall, if it ever does, after the surrounding industrial and cultural centers are taken. I can easily see any power surrendering, or any power fighting on, but to imply that there was some great difference between the two sides (besides ideology) is a bit daft.

I'd love to have surrenders be a bit different in every game, actually, with a percent chance each turn affected by the number of casualties taken, land lost, battles lost, and factories/land remaining, but that might be too much to ask.

In any case, great game. Thanks for reading.

[Becket]

FYI: the Pearl Harbor attack is "ineffectual" because the surprise rule is currently not functioning. This is fixed in the patch.

If you find that you're able to beat the Axis at or better than the historical timing (Germany in Spr 45 and Japan in Sum 45), then you may wish to consider giving the Axis more supply and transport assistance. These two items are very critical in terms of AI strategy. If you're playing on Normal, the AI will be limited by the amount of supply available to the Germans.

Lastly, as a practical matter, there's nothing left to the German & Japanese empires when you take the home territories. If you had to conquer every random grey & red square on the map, you'd have a gaming headache for no gain. The Axis nations have a comparable path to victory that you have neglected to mention: Automatic Victory. And, of course, you can turn these options off if you wish (but, as you probably know, there's no option to allow the Axis to conquer world powers by taking their capitals).

[Joel Billings]

Thanks for the feedback and we're glad you are enjoying the game. The WA production can certainly be overwhelming. Play balance is a tricky thing, especially since what can be balanced in human player games can be unbalanced in games versus the AI. The AI has it's own strengths and weaknesses, and GGWaW is a game where each of the 5 World Powers faces very different issues to worry about. There are a few things you can do to balance the game (for AI or human play). By using the supply help or combat modifiers you can customize the game to give yourself more of a challenge if you see certain sides consistently doing better. I think over time as people share strategies we'll see a back and forth arguement about the balance. In human vs human games a bidding system for supply help can quickly adjust any balance issues. As for the AI, once you know the system you should play on harder levels of difficulty or adjust specific modifiers to your liking to make the game more challenging. As for some of the rules you mentioned that you disagreed with (like surrenders), these can be modified in the text data files and I expect that over time some scenarios will be created by gamers with modified rules (i.e. a 1940 scenario that elminates Italian surrender, or one that adds Allied surrender rules).

Another thing worth noting is that there is a known bug that is fixed in the first patch we are currently testing that can alter play balance somewhat. You can find the current patch list on the support forum. Near the end of development a bug was inserted that keeps attacks on frozen zones from gaining the combat advantage they should have. The main impact of this is to make Pearl Harbor a bad attack that can hurt the Japanese more than it hurts the Allies. That can't be doing good things for play balance. Gary has already noticed that AI vs AI games have had their balance altered (Axis doing better) using the first patch. Even during development we watched balance go back and forth as new rules were created and bugs were fixed.

We are also continuing to improve the AI as we get specific feedback (and save games from players and testers). You can see some of these improvements on the patch list. We can't make the computer play like a good player, but we will do what we can to make it play like an ok novice player that can be boosted using the difficulty settings.

You may disagree, but for what it's worth my take on playing an AI in any game that is also designed for human vs human play is as follows:

1) first few games at easy or normal level
2) once I've played a side in a particular scenario more than twice, I boost up at least 1 difficulty level when playing that side in that scenario
3) once I'm consistently beating the AI I boost up to the next to the hardest level, which I hope will give me a competitive game
4) then, once I'm very experienced, I move to the most difficult setting, although I generally prefer playing 1 level down from the top

Following this should give you hours and hours of fun with GGWaW. Of course, that won't keep us from trying to make the AI better if we can find a way to do it. Thanks again for your feedback.

[literati]

Hahahaha, gotta watch out when inserting those bugs. Me, I prefer to take them out when I code, but to each his own. [:D]

I had thought about boosting the AI, of course, but I have this stubborn notion that good AI shouldn't need artificial boosts to be challenging. I realize the game is written for PBEM primarily, however, and that AI programming is a nasty, complicated business. I'm probably being unreasonable.

I look forward to playing the game with the patch. In the meantime, perhaps I'll try a game where I control the totality of the Axis and see how it goes - I've been concentrating on one country at a time up until now. I'm also about to embark on my first PBEM, so good times are ahead. Rest assured, I've already had hours and hours of enjoyment, and there's no end currently in sight.

[hickmanj]

I also love the game.

However, isn't literati's main point that if a human player is playing Germany over and over and always losing it probably isn't due to the AI but over-production/imbalance for the WA? (Errr, I'd like to believe I'm not *that* bad a player.... but maybe I have a wake-up call coming)

I pushed Russia all the way back to the Urals and they still wouldn't surrender.... I'll re-read the manual - but getting the WA countries to surrender seems impossible... this happened with me even using 4 tanks I "snuck" through the Middle East cutting railroads throughout the far east.

Building infastructure for Germany is hard when the population pool is so limited - I get that this is historical; but in that case, so would be Russia folding like a deck of cards if they had been pushed back to all but 3-5 territories in the Far East.

Just my 2 cents.... I'm less interested in complaining than getting feedback about what else I might try??? I'm am more than ready (sigh) to admit that I'm not the armchair general I think I am??? (Although I DO dress up in full fatigues when I play.... err, nvm)

J

[Barthheart]

Russia and the WA nver surrender. If you beat them down enough they just wait until they can be rescued. To win as the Axis you must capture 70+ resource centers. This is hard and needs both the Germans and the Japanese to do well not just one or the other.

Keep trying it can be done. I've done it.. once.[:'(] I think it should be hard to do as that was the reality of the times.

[Becket]

I've done it on challenging level (controlling both Germany and Japan). [:)]

I remember seeing paullus mangle the hell out of the AI playing just Germany, too, but he'd have to post the details (I could be misremembering .

[simone.donnini]

I think there is a simple solution to fix the Asix enormous disadvantage: +2 to the population pool

[Barthheart]

If you really want to it can be done easily enough by modifing the scenario text files to add population.

[Becket]

I have found no evidence of an enormous Axis disadvantage.

[hickmanj]

I don't have the ability to take screenshots and put them on email... but I wanted to share my last game.

By Fall of 1942, Germany had:

Taken Gibraltar - placed 3 infantry, 2 artillery, 2 tac bombers, 2 fighters there and was hosting 8 submarines - each up +2 in evasion and torpedoes.

I placed 3 heavy bombers, 2 tac bombers and 3 fighters in Paris.

I had swept through Cairo, taken the middle east (the parts that don't make SU declare war) and was pushing into the south and east.

I had a rough average of 8 infantry in my main 3 territories bordering Russia, 2 artillery in each, and 1 fighter in each, I also had 8 tanks up in the north ready to attack Leningrad.

Then it all went to hell.

Even though I had sunk about 15-20 of the WA transports - they kept massing more and more and then came and posted a hugh aircraft carrier fleet off of Gibraltar. They also started assaulting West Germany, Denmark and Africa.

I was trying to move units to the east to engage Russia in the Spring of '42.

My entire infrastructure was completely repaired and functioning.

I don't know what else I could have done?!?!? (Help!) Germany simply lacks population - it is crippling.

I had tons of research (my tanks by Winter of '44 had 8 evasion and 10 attack) and tons of supplies..... but without population I couldn't crank out enough units.

It seems unbalanced when Germany has done so well and been played so effectively to lose simply because of population - which cannot be raised (?)

I'd appreciate any thoughts, critique, feedback.

J

[Barthheart]

Sounds like history repeating itself to me. [:D] Sorry, had to be said.

There is no magic formula to win. Sounds like you were doing everything right. How were the Japanese doing? To win as the Axis, not just Germany, Japan must do well also. You need 70 resource points to win an automatic victory. Othere than that hold out until past the real end of the war and you have done a great job. The WA is not over powered as some might think. When their production gets cranking you're borrowed time. Keep playing and you'll get it. I think the fact that you can't easily win with the Germans is the sign of a good game. Winning with the Germans should be very hard.[:)] Look at the Gold PBEM AAR. I have the Russians by the throat, but now that the US is in the game and their production multiplier is x4!!! I'm in a lot of trouble. It will be fun and challenging just to drag the war out to '46.... if I can! [:'(]

[CommC]

I would like to cast my vote in favor of always playing all the world powers of a side, especially when playing axis. The axis is far to complicated to leave one power to the AI, and winning as axis requires careful coordination between Germany and Japan.

The challenge to this game is beating the AI as Allies, with you as axis. To win, you must focus on getting the 70 production points, not on conquering territory or a particular power. This may require a somewhat ahistorical and nonintuitive strategy. I'm just getting started on this, so I can't give any more specific advice. My guess is if you can take the caucasus, all of Europe and the Southeast pacific, you should win.

I will say that until I am beating the AI regularly as the Axis, I won't be complaining about the AI. If you want a challenge against the AI, for now, just always play the axis, and remember to always control both Germany and Japan... otherwise all bets are off in terms of judging the AI performance.

[hickmanj]

Barthheart,

I agree. I post so I can learn.

I also readily admit that I would *much* rather have the issue be I'm getting my butt kicked than steamrolling - b/c then I'd already have shelved the game.

This is easily the best $40 I've spent in a long time.....

I realized from reading and playing that I was thinking "Risk" style - winning meant conquering the entire world.... instead of changing history and doing better with Germany than it did in reality....

Sigh, this game is destroying my life.... all I do is play it, or think about playing it.

J

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: hickmanj

Sigh, this game is destroying my life.... all I do is play it, or think about playing it.

A new marketing tagline in the making?

[Warspite3]

I need to say I think this AI is one of the best I have ever seen in a strategy game. Other examples of excellent AI would be Galactic Civilizations, Civilization 3, Rise of Nations and Starcraft. So the GGWaW AI is right in with these excellent titles. If an AI ever has you cursing (which every one of these done more then once) it is excellent and plays a tough game. I have not even came close to beating the GGWaW AI yet on normal level. I have played 2 games as Japan so far.

[Bossy573]

ORIGINAL: Becket
I have found no evidence of an enormous Axis disadvantage.

In my most recent game playing as Germany, I conquered all of continental Europe, the Balkans, Gibtraltar and was driving into the middle east when the Russians declared war. By the beginning of 1943 they were at the gates of Berlin, America was in the war and pouring into North Africa and I had partisan uprisings all over the place. I am enjoying the challange tremendously and I readily admit I have a lot to learn about how the game works BUT there is no denying the Allies and Russia hold a considerable advantage as, in fact, they did in the actual event.
There could be a few tweaks to ad some "realism" to the advantage. For example, I find it hard to believe that Russia, had they declared war and actually attacked Germany would have immediately become the massive steamroller they seem to be in this game at all times. Perhaps a combat modifier to reflect Axis superiority, early in the war, in tactics and combat, especially on the offensive?

Or maybe I just stink and this is all sour grapes....... [:D]

[QBeam]

Population is definately the ceiling I bumped my head on when I followed a similar line to the one you describe, but I still won a decisive Axis victory.

From what you describe, I think you're attack on Russia was too weak. When I did it, I had 5 or 6 more tanks, and a lot more artillery (but less Inf). You were way over-committed in Gibraltar, I think, and slightly over-committed on subs. In my game, the Allies got frisky when I went into Russia, but it just didn't matter. Let them pick off stray units with shore attacks. Let them launch Torch, for that matter. You've got to overrun a bunch of Soviet factories to buy the time you need.

At the end of my game, I was down to just three provinces, but I had a huge, teched-out army, and could have held Germany for another several turns. The Allies had thrown so much at me they'd left Japan unmolested. Decisive Axis victory.

[hickmanj]

I'm actually realizing that I had a German victory.

I am used to thinking of wargames as "conquer the world" .... when I posted that I was thinking I had to conquer everyone to win.... now I realize that I just need to play it out ahistorically to win.....


That game actually ended quite well once I realized this.... I actually drove the Allies three times from the shores of France and held Russia at Austria and thereabouts....

I love this game..... I made my wife tape her wedding ring to the CD just so she is clear about our current relationship until I have mastered WaW.

[&o] J

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: hickmanjI love this game..... I made my wife tape her wedding ring to the CD just so she is clear about our current relationship until I have mastered WaW.

[&o] J

LOL [:D]